-
1 of 10
-
2 of 10
-
3 of 10
-
4 of 10
-
5 of 10
-
6 of 10
-
7 of 10
-
8 of 10
-
9 of 10
-
10 of 10
Have we evolved:
Archive
Comments
Story
The red, white and blue seams of the United States are bursting. There are so many stupid people living in this country that the very fabric of America’s subsistence is being pulled apart. Something needs to be done and I think I have a good place to start. In terms of qualifying people to vote, have we evolved?
There have been far too many occasions where this conversation took place:
“Hello, sir, who are you going to for?”
“Who, me? I’m votin’ for Obama!”
“And why is that sir?”
“Well, ah, I want change.”
“What kind of change sir?”
“Change.”
“That doesn’t make sense sir.”
“Change! Change!”
What a freaking disgrace, and it doesn’t get any better for the other side:
“Hello, miss, can I ask you who you plan to vote for?”
“Who, me? I’m voting for Sarah Palin!”
“You mean you’re voting for her running mate, John McCain, right?”
“No, I’m voting for Sarah. She reminds me of me! Yeahweehooha!!!”
“That doesn’t make sense ma’am.”
“Sarah! Sarah!”
Before being allowed access to a polling booth, a test needs to be administered. It would be a very simple and direct litmus test about the candidates.
Yes, there used to be litmus tests in the past and the effort failed horribly. This was because the reason to have the test was to oppress a given population. The logic for the historical test was derisive and backward. It wasn’t there to help; it was there to hurt.
A newly developed test would be established to provide security for the future of this country. The logic for the test doesn’t encourage oppression, but rather self-preservation. The electoral process has been simplified down to a frighteningly stupid level. If a person is going to vote, they should understand why the decision they are making is important. A person should understand why they are voting for one candidate and not the other.
A good example for this relates to a BBC story I was listening to on NPR. A British journalist was reporting on the quirky American voting philosophy. He was at a complete loss as to how to explain why Americans would vote for a candidate whose overt policies would worsen their quality of life. Time and time again, an American will cast his or her vote for a candidate whose policies will adversely affect them (and the rest of the country for that matter).
This trend needs to end. Not simply because it is irritating, but because it damages the veracity of a democratically elected official and corrodes away the constitution of our well-being.
So, in terms of qualifying people to vote, have we evolved?
Verdict: Not yet … but give it time … oh yes … give it time.
BOB BEERS
Opinion editor
